Marine Life

I'm American. New Yorker, specifically.

Gauz wrote:I think that's a bad generalization to make


Americans are pig heads


Some americans can be assholes, but not all are, thank you.

I didn't say that all were, just some of them........ I just get annoyed with how America seem to have there nose in everything even when it has nothing to do with them and not to mention some Americans seem to treat people from other countries like shit..... The only decent thing America has done to date was destroy the Germans in World War 2.

Angatar wrote:How do you know most Americans are assholes?

It's actually quite simple. Most of everyone are assholes. Therefore, it stands to reason that Americans are not an exception to this rule. What Spartan15 and TNine left out is that most British are assholes, most French are assholes, most Germans are assholes, most Russians are assholes, most Australians are assholes, etc etc.

Spartan15 wrote:I didn't say that all were, just some of them........ I just get annoyed with how America seem to have there nose in everything even when it has nothing to do with them and not to mention some Americans seem to treat people from other countries like shit..... The only decent thing America has done to date was destroy the Germans in World War 2.

Which, ironically, falls right into the category of something that had nothing to do with us that we stuck our nose into.

I would also point out that if the UN did their job, we wouldn't have to stick our noses into things having nothing to do with us. If we weren't so busy fixing the Middle East, we'd probably march into Sudan and teach the Janjaweed to go fuck off. Meanwhile, the UN sits with its thumbs up its ass. "Genocide, you say? Well, we wouldn't want to insult the maniacs in Chad and Sudan who want to cleanse the area...so we'll just sit around and do nothing."

I would then further note that most people in other countries treat Americans like shit.

Beyond that, I would point out all of the cool things that America has done other than save Europe's ass in World War II, but it's 0215, and I can't be bothered to list out what would be longer than the list of countries who are mostly assholes.

TNine wrote:

PiEdude wrote:

TNine wrote:A war assumes that we could lose and the other side could win. Which, as of now, is simply impossible. They couldn't even force a nuclear stalemate, we are too large of a company to take out with a small amount of nukes, and we have our anti-nuke coming on in what? 2012?

They can kill a few civilians, sure, but they cannot win. At least not unless someone else helps them.

Now that depends on what you mean by "winning".

If you mean "Complete annihilation of the Enemy" then yes, you are correct.

On the other hand, we could still pull a Vietnam, and declare victory (which Mr. Bush technically already did, about 7 years ago) and leave the country, only to have the force we were fighting come back into power immediately.

Iraq and Afganistan can still (and for Iraq, almost certainly will) be lost, which is why people shouldn't fall into a comfortable state of mind on the war, as you have.

I'm not saying we will be succesful, i'm just saying that i don't see it as a war cause there isn't two obvious sides fighting eachother. The Taliban and Al'Queda are hiding in the hills, using suicide bombs and roadside bombs almost exclusively. Every time they get a full "base" up and running, we immediately wipe it out. Look at the Gulf War, Iraq had a fairly large and fully functional army that got wiped off the map in 72 hours.

The thing with Vietnam was (from what i've heard, which is fairly little) the Vietcong had a pretty good sized army (they had tanks for instance) that they hid in the jungles, and set up ambushes that destroyed us, while we tried to have a straight march right through the forest and rely on artilery. Now, we have better soldiers who are willing to do this, rather than the hardly trained and drafted ones at Vietnam,and we have all new kinds of fancy technology to decimate any opposition (Predator drones). Sure, they can still use ambushes, and kill a few marines, but the ambushing forces will be hunted down and destroyed, and any base will be infiltrated and decimated.

The Vietcong were Southern Vietnamese that were supporters of the Northern Governement. Our tactics were the ultimate downfall of us in Vietnam, although "Drafted" troops may have contributed, drafted troops are not inexperienced. They go through training as well. We also had the problem of telling apart Friend-or-Foe in the civilian population which was a serious problem as well.

Actually, recent tries of the "almost" retired U-2 of the Cold War era in Afghanistan have proven more successful in Intelligence gathering and Recon then the "Technologically advanced" Predator Drones.

I wouldn't consider Vietnam a full war, as there wasn't really a regimented army on the other side, but the other side had much more resources and America much less resources, not to mention the opposition that we faced at home that is so much smaller now.

The Vietcong were not our only enemies in Vietnam. The NVA or also known as the North Vietnamese Army were trained soldiers that fought for the North.

So NT, were are you headed for your service?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:How do you know most Americans are assholes?

It's actually quite simple. Most of everyone are assholes. Therefore, it stands to reason that Americans are not an exception to this rule. What Spartan15 and TNine left out is that most British are assholes, most French are assholes, most Germans are assholes, most Russians are assholes, most Australians are assholes, etc etc.

Spartan15 wrote:I didn't say that all were, just some of them........ I just get annoyed with how America seem to have there nose in everything even when it has nothing to do with them and not to mention some Americans seem to treat people from other countries like shit..... The only decent thing America has done to date was destroy the Germans in World War 2.

Which, ironically, falls right into the category of something that had nothing to do with us that we stuck our nose into.

I would also point out that if the UN did their job, we wouldn't have to stick our noses into things having nothing to do with us. If we weren't so busy fixing the Middle East, we'd probably march into Sudan and teach the Janjaweed to go fuck off. Meanwhile, the UN sits with its thumbs up its ass. "Genocide, you say? Well, we wouldn't want to insult the maniacs in Chad and Sudan who want to cleanse the area...so we'll just sit around and do nothing."

I would then further note that most people in other countries treat Americans like shit.

Beyond that, I would point out all of the cool things that America has done other than save Europe's ass in World War II, but it's 0215, and I can't be bothered to list out what would be longer than the list of countries who are mostly assholes.

Doesn't that make you wonder why other countries treat America like shit if they are getting involved with every known fight between other countries? For example, when Russia and Georgia had there little disagreement a couople of years ago, America was quick to get involved and warn Russia to back off rather than let the two countries sort it out themselves. Fair enough America were sticking up for Georgia because Russia would of wiped them out but my point is, America simply don't know when to stop and just let the countries that are fighting sort it out. I have nothing against America or Americans. It just gets frustrating how they are involved in pretty much every argument between other countries.

Anywho, the basic idea of my days currently is:

0600 - wake up
0630 - chow
0700 - arrive at work and do nothing
1100 - chow
1300 - return to work and do nothing
1630 - leave work, chow, go to rec center, play ffxiii and mw2 with other marines
2100 - hit rack


And on the 11th I'm going with a group of admin chicks to a daughtry concert, for free, put on by the USO. Oorah!

Spartan15 wrote: Doesn't that make you wonder why other countries treat America like shit if they are getting involved with every known fight between other countries? For example, when Russia and Georgia had there little disagreement a couople of years ago, America was quick to get involved and warn Russia to back off rather than let the two countries sort it out themselves. Fair enough America were sticking up for Georgia because Russia would of wiped them out but my point is, America simply don't know when to stop and just let the countries that are fighting sort it out. I have nothing against America or Americans. It just gets frustrating how they are involved in pretty much every argument between other countries.

What you're talking about is a decision that was made by the US government, not the people. The US government probably got their hands into it because it affected them economically for some reason or sorts. (not really educated in that situation) But its not just the US Gov. that does this, all of the "big" countries do. They need to keep their wallets secure you know?

If I had any say, I'd keep America's feet out of everyone's potato salad and just focus on our issues. But hey, being that we play such and important role in the world's economy, we need to at least try to keep things in check.

Baconsen wrote:

Spartan15 wrote: Doesn't that make you wonder why other countries treat America like shit if they are getting involved with every known fight between other countries? For example, when Russia and Georgia had there little disagreement a couople of years ago, America was quick to get involved and warn Russia to back off rather than let the two countries sort it out themselves. Fair enough America were sticking up for Georgia because Russia would of wiped them out but my point is, America simply don't know when to stop and just let the countries that are fighting sort it out. I have nothing against America or Americans. It just gets frustrating how they are involved in pretty much every argument between other countries.

What you're talking about is a decision that was made by the US government, not the people. The US government probably got their hands into it because it affected them economically for some reason or sorts. (not really educated in that situation) But its not just the US Gov. that does this, all of the "big" countries do. They need to keep their wallets secure you know?

If I had any say, I'd keep America's feet out of everyone's potato salad and just focus on our issues. But hey, being that we play such and important role in the world's economy, we need to at least try to keep things in check.

Indeed but on some occasions i think the U.S. goverment made the wrong decision about getting involved but yes you are right on one aspect, America's economy is one of the most important economies in the world yet i'm not sure how thats been the cause of any argument between any countries yet..... Either way my apologies for dragging this thread off topic. Sounds like your days consist of doing nothing at the moment NT.Sounds like the life.

Spartan15 wrote:Doesn't that make you wonder why other countries treat America like shit if they are getting involved with every known fight between other countries?

No, not really. I would expect that people would treat the UN like shit for failing so hard that someone else has to do their job.

Spartan15 wrote:For example, when Russia and Georgia had there little disagreement a couople of years ago, America was quick to get involved and warn Russia to back off rather than let the two countries sort it out themselves.

You think that Russia and Georgia were going to work things out? If, by work things out, you mean Russia would pressure Georgia into returning, and probably end up using military force, then yes, they would have worked things out. At the cost of how many lives is yet to be seen.

Spartan15 wrote:Fair enough America were sticking up for Georgia because Russia would of wiped them out but my point is

It's funny, the first example that comes to your mind is actually one where America is justified.

Spartan15 wrote:America simply don't know when to stop and just let the countries that are fighting sort it out.

What do you mean? We told Russia to back off and to solve things diplomatically, and then we were done. Russia and Georgia solved their issues and moved on. If you're going to bring up an example of us getting involved and not leaving, you should be pointing out South Korea or Taiwan. Of course, you can't, because if we didn't get involved, North Korea would have slaughtered South Korean civilians for the lulz, and China would have bombed Taiwan into an uninhabitable island. And one can't be surprised that France, Germany, and Russia were against the Second Gulf War, when under the counter, all were make huge illegal profits in the Oil for Food Scandal. As I recall, one of the people arrested in the Oil for Food Scandal was a personal friend of former President Jacques Chirac.

Spartan15 wrote:I have nothing against America or Americans. It just gets frustrating how they are involved in pretty much every argument between other countries.

The issue is, some third party has to be involved. The UN is supposed to, but their too busy sitting on their asses doing nothing to be bothered to fix anything. I mean, look at the one issue America is not directly involved in: the genocide in Darfur! Do you see those people working out their problems peacefully? No. Do you see anyone else fixing the problem? No. As it stands, three hundred thousand civilians are dead, and near three million have fled. Meanwhile, the UN's meager ten thousand peacekeeper force can't be bothered to do its own job. The translators are on strike because they haven't been paid yet, and the peacekeepers themselves aren't allowed to defend the civilians.

This is the alternative to America getting involved in everything. Liking it, so far?

And the marines get involved in everything since they're the only branch that doesn't require an act of congress. The president picks up the phone and within 48 hours a full MAGTF is anywhere in the world he needs them.

And I'm starting to do MMA every Tuesday and Wednesday

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Spartan15 wrote:Doesn't that make you wonder why other countries treat America like shit if they are getting involved with every known fight between other countries?

No, not really. I would expect that people would treat the UN like shit for failing so hard that someone else has to do their job.

Spartan15 wrote:For example, when Russia and Georgia had there little disagreement a couople of years ago, America was quick to get involved and warn Russia to back off rather than let the two countries sort it out themselves.

You think that Russia and Georgia were going to work things out? If, by work things out, you mean Russia would pressure Georgia into returning, and probably end up using military force, then yes, they would have worked things out. At the cost of how many lives is yet to be seen.

Spartan15 wrote:Fair enough America were sticking up for Georgia because Russia would of wiped them out but my point is

It's funny, the first example that comes to your mind is actually one where America is justified.

Spartan15 wrote:America simply don't know when to stop and just let the countries that are fighting sort it out.

What do you mean? We told Russia to back off and to solve things diplomatically, and then we were done. Russia and Georgia solved their issues and moved on. If you're going to bring up an example of us getting involved and not leaving, you should be pointing out South Korea or Taiwan. Of course, you can't, because if we didn't get involved, North Korea would have slaughtered South Korean civilians for the lulz, and China would have bombed Taiwan into an uninhabitable island. And one can't be surprised that France, Germany, and Russia were against the Second Gulf War, when under the counter, all were make huge illegal profits in the Oil for Food Scandal. As I recall, one of the people arrested in the Oil for Food Scandal was a personal friend of former President Jacques Chirac.

Spartan15 wrote:I have nothing against America or Americans. It just gets frustrating how they are involved in pretty much every argument between other countries.

The issue is, some third party has to be involved. The UN is supposed to, but their too busy sitting on their asses doing nothing to be bothered to fix anything. I mean, look at the one issue America is not directly involved in: the genocide in Darfur! Do you see those people working out their problems peacefully? No. Do you see anyone else fixing the problem? No. As it stands, three hundred thousand civilians are dead, and near three million have fled. Meanwhile, the UN's meager ten thousand peacekeeper force can't be bothered to do its own job. The translators are on strike because they haven't been paid yet, and the peacekeepers themselves aren't allowed to defend the civilians.

This is the alternative to America getting involved in everything. Liking it, so far?

Yes i am seeing where you are coming from with this Rotaretilbo but i still don't understand why America think they should get involved just because the U.N. doesn't for some reason or other. America shouldn't be the third party to get involved and nor should any other countries except the U.N. as it's there responsibility to deal with matters like that. Even if, as you say that "The translators are on strike", the U.N. should still be able to find an alternative around the problem and that way America wouldn't be so disliked by a lot of other countries around the globe. It's just a simple matter of the U.N. getting off their lazy asses and doing their job properly.

KristallNacht wrote:And I'm starting to do MMA every Tuesday and Wednesday

Oh might i say good luck with it aswell.

Spartan15 wrote:that way America wouldn't be so disliked by a lot of other countries around the globe.

america isn't all that disliked. Even the Iraqi people are seeing us in a good light.



on a side note
If america locked up its borders and completely stopped associating with foreign countries we'd immediately become the envy of the world since we're one of the few countries that could self sustain.

KristallNacht wrote:

Spartan15 wrote:that way America wouldn't be so disliked by a lot of other countries around the globe.

america isn't all that disliked. Even the Iraqi people are seeing us in a good light.



on a side note
If america locked up its borders and completely stopped associating with foreign countries we'd immediately become the envy of the world since we're one of the few countries that could self sustain.

You do realize how the Great Depression came about, right?

artificially high stock prices, which is nothing to do with becoming a utopia

KristallNacht wrote:artificially high stock prices, which is nothing to do with becoming a utopia

Although that was a huge factor, the break-down of international trade also helped contribute to the Great Depression. We learned a vital lesson from it. We need to trade with other nations.

not really. because what really defines 'another nation' in terms of trade?

no answer you can give is really going to require trade outside of the US

Spartan15 wrote:Yes i am seeing where you are coming from with this Rotaretilbo but i still don't understand why America think they should get involved just because the U.N. doesn't for some reason or other. America shouldn't be the third party to get involved and nor should any other countries except the U.N. as it's there responsibility to deal with matters like that. Even if, as you say that "The translators are on strike", the U.N. should still be able to find an alternative around the problem and that way America wouldn't be so disliked by a lot of other countries around the globe. It's just a simple matter of the U.N. getting off their lazy asses and doing their job properly.

Ah, but you see the problem there? The UN should, but they don't. So our options are either let the world go to hell or try to fix it at the cost of everyone hating us for some reason.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Spartan15 wrote:Yes i am seeing where you are coming from with this Rotaretilbo but i still don't understand why America think they should get involved just because the U.N. doesn't for some reason or other. America shouldn't be the third party to get involved and nor should any other countries except the U.N. as it's there responsibility to deal with matters like that. Even if, as you say that "The translators are on strike", the U.N. should still be able to find an alternative around the problem and that way America wouldn't be so disliked by a lot of other countries around the globe. It's just a simple matter of the U.N. getting off their lazy asses and doing their job properly.

Ah, but you see the problem there? The UN should, but they don't. So our options are either let the world go to hell or try to fix it at the cost of everyone hating us for some reason.

Yes i have observed the problem there and the conclusion is as you said, the U.N. should get off their asses and do what they should be doing and that way America wouldn't have to put themselves in that sort of position.

Kristall Nacht: I do happen to know that America aren't very popular with a few countries around the globe including Russia and Japan but then again i guess every country has there enemies. And i never suggested anything about America closing down their borders.....

Japan doesn't dislike America. We provide them with Military Security.

Without us they'd be speaking Chinese

KristallNacht wrote:Japan doesn't dislike America. We provide them with Military Security.

Without us they'd be speaking Chinese

Just because you provide them with military security doesn't mean that they neccesarily like America..

Spartan15 wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:Japan doesn't dislike America. We provide them with Military Security.

Without us they'd be speaking Chinese

Just because you provide them with military security doesn't mean that they neccesarily like America..

Yeah, we kinda nuked them a few decades ago... yeah, sorry about that Japan. We didn't think it would... you know... obliterate everything.... yeah...

Nocbl2 wrote:

Spartan15 wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:Japan doesn't dislike America. We provide them with Military Security.

Without us they'd be speaking Chinese

Just because you provide them with military security doesn't mean that they neccesarily like America..

Yeah, we kinda nuked them a few decades ago... yeah, sorry about that Japan. We didn't think it would... you know... obliterate everything.... yeah...

Would rather have two cities nuked with a few thousand?

Or do the operation to retake Japan through the means of invasion, which estimated over a MILLION casualties for the United States, half a million for the United Kingdom and almost the entire Japanese population being killed?

The uranium and plutonium bombs were the best chioce at the time.


Also, I highly doubt Japan would be speaking Chinese right now.

Besides, the Japanese hate everyone who isn't Japanese. I doubt they hate us any more or less than everyone else.